At 11:10 AM 04/11/02 -0700, Colin Kuskie wrote:
>All I'm saying is that every once in a while, make sure that one of
>your releases compiles and basically works. You can call it whatever
>you like, but with a plethora of search engines available, if
>you don't provide something that is guaranteed to compile every once
>in a while your user base will go away.
Semantics is the problem.
It's been so long since 2.1-dev didn't compile or wasn't stable that I
think it is the daily released version!
For me, the "dev" version is the best version ever. It's the code the
developers know and of course the one with the most bug fixes. Why would
anyone want something else? ;)
For everyone else "dev" means buggy or not finished.
In reality, the "release" will be a renamed "dev". Same code, but now it's
ok to use.
If we can get a 2.2-pre-1 out will a few people promise to use it? And
review the docs? Then we can rename it 2.2 after all reports come back good.
Does that make sense?
Or maybe let's call it 2.2.8 for marketing reasons: a lot of people wait
for later sub-releases to get the bugs fixed. ;)
>The open source philosophy is release often and early. But that assumes
>that users can actually build the releases, and your current CVS
>snapshot process prevents that.
We do release often. We release daily!
Why do you say that the CVS snapshot prevents that?
>I'll start with the docs, but no promises on the examples.
Thanks very much!
--
Bill Moseley
mailto:moseley@hank.org